http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/03/29/lib...That's largely because most of them are so insulated from anything conservative or libertarian, hearing well-articulated conservative arguments being well-received simply does not compute. They're experiencing a culture shock to discover that conservatives aren't just a bunch of knuckle-dragging know-nothings who can't string more than three words together.

The Left so completely dominates America's elite media that, inside the media bubble, liberal journalists are often utterly ignorant of conservative viewpoints. As former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg has said repeatedly, most elite media journalists don't really know people who are center-right, and have no interest in seeking out conservatives, so they have a very truncated view of what conservatives think.

This is true in political journalism and, as this week has made clear, in legal journalism as well. Leading liberal journalists who cover the court (Toobin was one such) had made confident predictions of an easy win for the individual mandate were shocked to see the its advocates like Solicitor General Donald Verrilli be so utterly ineffectual arguing on its behalf.

Understand I think the Individual mandate is unconstitutional and I want to see it struck down along with several provisions to Obamacare. But, don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Oral arguments is just one part of the process and usually not an important one at that. There is the filing phase, and the research phase, and the justices privately debating the issue phase before the final judgement. It is what is written those briefs and written arguments filed with the court and the research - which Justice Thomas is known to be an expert at, legal research, that may decide the case and not the oral arguments.
But still I find it unnerving that several liberal pundits are now resorting to the usual democrats fear tactics or predicting dire consequences if Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) should get over turned.
Rep. Sander Levin in his article entitled: "Commentary: New health care law should be preserved"
http://www.detroitnews.com/ar..."
Three months from now — or thereabouts — the justices will decide this case. Their decision will have long-lasting impact on everyone in our nation. Some could feel the effect sooner than others. The 84,000 seniors and people with disabilities in the Medicare prescription drug program who received an average $580 discount in...

Understand I think the Individual mandate is unconstitutional and I want to see it struck down along with several provisions to Obamacare. But, don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Oral arguments is just one part of the process and usually not an important one at that. There is the filing phase, and the research phase, and the justices privately debating the issue phase before the final judgement. It is what is written those briefs and written arguments filed with the court and the research - which Justice Thomas is known to be an expert at, legal research, that may decide the case and not the oral arguments.
But still I find it unnerving that several liberal pundits are now resorting to the usual democrats fear tactics or predicting dire consequences if Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) should get over turned.
Rep. Sander Levin in his article entitled: "Commentary: New health care law should be preserved"
http://www.detroitnews.com/ar..."
Three months from now — or thereabouts — the justices will decide this case. Their decision will have long-lasting impact on everyone in our nation. Some could feel the effect sooner than others. The 84,000 seniors and people with disabilities in the Medicare prescription drug program who received an average $580 discount in 2011 could see the so-called "doughnut hole" open back up. The 57,000 young adults in Michigan who received insurance through their parents' coverage could no longer have that assurance. And the three million Michiganians who received free preventive services could see that benefit disappear."
= = =
Fear tactics designed to scare the populace into acting and put the Justices under pressure by producing published news reports of people reacting. like protests, demonstrations and writing to the justices in which the Justice3s might see and read. . What about the billions of dollars Obamacare has already stripped from Medicare for the elderly and it's plan to end Medicare Advantage and phase Medicare Advantage out? Hmmmmm?

And then their is this writer who seams to forget that Judicial activism is usually associated with liberal Judges that Republicans fought against, liberal Robert Shrum wrote these lovely little quotes in his article entitled "Will a Tea Party Supreme Court guarantee Obama a second term?"
http://theweek.com/bullpen/co..."Will a Tea Party Supreme Court guarantee Obama a second term?
The court's conservative wing appears ready to engage in some despicable judicial activism on ObamaCare. Politically, at least, the justices are doing Obama a favor
Recall the scorn toward health reform dripping from the lips of Injustice Antonin Scalia. Or think of the tight-lipped Clarence Thomas, who could send a mannequin to sit in his place at the court's oral arguments for all the difference his brooding presence makes. Along with the more plausibly judicious Samuel Alito, he too had more than likely made his decision. And so on the nation's highest court, satire replaced stare decisis in a slightly altered version of the Red Queen's jurisprudence in Alice in Wonderland: First the verdict, then the trial."

My my, isn't he bitter? but hey, Like I said, isn't judicial activism usually associated with the left??? He's bitter because they doing what they are hire to do, to determine what is constitutional and what is not. He is pissed it might go against what he supports. He goes on to write:

"Some observers, and administration officials, hold out hope that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy will decide to save health reform from the revanchist claims of right-wing constitutionalism. I'm pessimistic because I lived through Bush v. Gore, when the court acted like a political ward committee, stopping the vote count in Florida to hand the presidency to George W. Bush by the margin of a single judicial vote. "

Guess what, Gore lost, live with it.

"Now comes the historic decision on health reform — which could reach far beyond the case to fray the whole fabric of progress in modern America. To overturn the individual mandate, to throw out all or most of the rest of the law, would be an act of naked judicial activism, which conservatives profess to despise. In truth, though, they practice it vigorously, in barely concealed disguise, when it advances their own ends. Depending on the "reasoning" rationalized by five horsemen of the judicial right, they could jeopardize other basic protections — for example, the prohibition against segregation at distinctly local enterprises like lunch counters, a prohibition that depends on a generous and long-prevailing view of federal regulation of interstate commerce."

Like Liberal left activist Justices are known to do????

He still goes on to write.
"A politically infected court could produce a politically unexpected result, strengthening Obama and weakening Romney and the Republicans."
and
"Third, the Democratic base and women would rally to Obama because they would understand more plainly than ever the threat of a Republican president packing the Supreme Court with more injustices hostile to reproductive rights, to equality for minorities and gay Americans, and to essential protections for the environment and workers on the job."

and

"Third, the Democratic base and women would rally to Obama because they would understand more plainly than ever the threat of a Republican president packing the Supreme Court with more injustices hostile to reproductive rights, to equality for minorities and gay Americans, and to essential protections for the environment and workers on the job. "

Wait a moment there buddy, first off, President G.W. Bush appointed the same number of Justices as Obama did so far- TWO - Justice Robberts and Justice Alito. If that is 'packing the court' then Obama is guilty of it too with his appointments. Didn't Obama tried to 'Politically infect the court' by not only appointing two liberal activists as U.S. Supreme court Justices in Sotomayor and Kagan who Kagan just happened to be one of the people Obama hired to draft and help lobby Obamacare's passage through Conngress? And yes, Kegan's presence on the court is definitely an indication that Obama has tried to stack the court in case Obamacare came before it. There has been reports that Kagan has been in communication with the White House giving reports on what the other justices are thinking and saying about Obama's healthcare law. So what did Mr. Robert Shrum had to say on that? NOTHING! Apparently that's okay with him.

Then I found another liberal pundit who said that the Republicans fight for the constitution and constitutionally guaranteed liberties was "silly"

It just goes to show the depths some of the left will go when some of their positions are questioned: Fear tactics, hate speech, hypocritical statements, and lies,

What you don't see is the "demand" that we have medical insurance.I am and have always been very healthy so out of $$$ I don't sign my name to anything.Yes...There will be a time that I will need insurance, but not now. I am not gonna pay anything just to have my name on paper when I am very healthy and if any emergency happens...EMERGENCY ROOM of any hospital. By LAW you can't be turned away in need!!!

I understand where you are coming from. The thing is while I do think health insurance is a good idea, forcing people to buy it is wrong, and unconstitutional. Specially when Obama wants to trick people who are against abortion to finance it through their insurance premiums. But the biggest lie is the one his lawyers are telling the court right now,- the penalty one has to pay if one does not buy one of the Government backed health insurance is not really a fine but a "Tax" instead (To which Congress does have a right to levy a tax without the consent of the states). I say it is cheap semantics to avoid calling it for what it is, a FINE to punish those who don't want to buy the insurance plan, and pressure the majority to accepting Obama's Obamacare. I know that because of a similar situation we have here in Illinois in regards to Auto insurance.The state requires all who own a car to have auto insurance as part of the privilege to drive a vehicle on the street, road and highway in Illinois. If you get pulled over for a ticket or get involved in an accident, and you can't show proof of insurance, it is an automatic $500 fine on top of the fine for the ticket, And if you were in an accident, the accident automatically becomes your fault even if the acident was really the other ...

I understand where you are coming from. The thing is while I do think health insurance is a good idea, forcing people to buy it is wrong, and unconstitutional. Specially when Obama wants to trick people who are against abortion to finance it through their insurance premiums. But the biggest lie is the one his lawyers are telling the court right now,- the penalty one has to pay if one does not buy one of the Government backed health insurance is not really a fine but a "Tax" instead (To which Congress does have a right to levy a tax without the consent of the states). I say it is cheap semantics to avoid calling it for what it is, a FINE to punish those who don't want to buy the insurance plan, and pressure the majority to accepting Obama's Obamacare. I know that because of a similar situation we have here in Illinois in regards to Auto insurance.The state requires all who own a car to have auto insurance as part of the privilege to drive a vehicle on the street, road and highway in Illinois. If you get pulled over for a ticket or get involved in an accident, and you can't show proof of insurance, it is an automatic $500 fine on top of the fine for the ticket, And if you were in an accident, the accident automatically becomes your fault even if the acident was really the other guy's fault. Here in Illinois, we don't we don't kid ourselves about what it is and beat about the bush. It is a Fine and we call it for what it is, A FINE, not a tax,as part of a foot dance around the court. It is a FINE. a unconstitutional fine.

Thank, you because that is why it is unconstitutional. It is discrimatory and seeks to target and punish those who ether can't afford it or simply choose not to choose. And What is worst is that I had just heard Obama make a statement about the court that could be taken one of two ways. Him threaten9ing the court or him trying to influence the court outside of it's set proceedures and set style of oral arguments. If the court see it one of those two ways, it is possible that the court will rule agaianst the law because of Obama's actions. The one thing that I have learn when I have studied the Constitution, the court and constitutional law while earning my Political sceine degree is that the U.S. Supreme court likes to think of itself as an independent body in the Government and it deeply resents being bullied, threatened, interferred with, tampered with, and it's proceedures ignored. Those who try it often get ruled against. Obama threatened that if the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional, there was going to be dire consquinces that the court would be at fault for. Aka: he was using fear tactics again. If I may be permitted to play the Devil's advocate for a moment hre. If I was one of Obama's lawyers and advisors, I would tell him to shut the hell up and let his du...

Thank, you because that is why it is unconstitutional. It is discrimatory and seeks to target and punish those who ether can't afford it or simply choose not to choose. And What is worst is that I had just heard Obama make a statement about the court that could be taken one of two ways. Him threaten9ing the court or him trying to influence the court outside of it's set proceedures and set style of oral arguments. If the court see it one of those two ways, it is possible that the court will rule agaianst the law because of Obama's actions. The one thing that I have learn when I have studied the Constitution, the court and constitutional law while earning my Political sceine degree is that the U.S. Supreme court likes to think of itself as an independent body in the Government and it deeply resents being bullied, threatened, interferred with, tampered with, and it's proceedures ignored. Those who try it often get ruled against. Obama threatened that if the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional, there was going to be dire consquinces that the court would be at fault for. Aka: he was using fear tactics again. If I may be permitted to play the Devil's advocate for a moment hre. If I was one of Obama's lawyers and advisors, I would tell him to shut the hell up and let his duly appointed representives within the SCOTUS Courtroom to do all the talking for him. Either that or apply to the SCOTUS as a Supreme Court lawyer in order to give his case in oral arguments where the justices can question him just like everyone oneelse. (Fat chance of that happening with Obama's ego.)

The politicians, bureaucrats and "intellectuals", especially inside the beltway, are more insulated and surrounded by yes types than King Louis and Marie Antoinette were. They hear and see only what they want and dismiss anything that conflicts with their myopic view of the world as fluke aberration.

Oh really lets take a look at some of these "Dangerous Communists"Charles Dickens

H.G. Wells

Of corse literacy is a threat to conservativism, there are as many good people who are communist as their are bad people and actually if you read the Communist Manifesto the big bad guys you think are communist actually contradict Karl Marx.

You realize Hitler was a Fascist and not a Communist right, also Communists have been involved in every civil rights movement in american history. In the books written by Wells and Dickens you can find things that aren't pro capitalism. The Aliens from War of the Worlds was supposed to represent imperialism. capitalism, and corporate cronyism. In the story of The Christmas Carol we see a capitalist that shows no regard for the poor change his mind after seeing the error of his ways. I am not a Communist but I am not ignorant of Communism I believe in a Mixed Economy with elements of a Binary Economy added to it.

Well I already mentioned Charles Dickens and H.G. Wells both identified themselves as Communist. Actually the people you mention are fake communists who think their communist but actually contradict Karl Marx a lot.

And I have this nice little book written by Christopher Andrew and by a soviet defector who was a former retired archivist/ librarian for the KGB, Vasili Nikitich Mitrokhin. His job in the KGB's foreign Intelligence Archive was to catalogue and file Top secret files of various covert actions of soviet Spies within his branch of the KGB the The First Chief directorate (FCD).otherwise known as the Russian foreign Intelligence service.called Sluzhba Vneshnei Razvedki (SVR). Mitrokhin was allowed to make notes on the files he saw and keep them. When Mitrokhin defected, he brought with him and his family six cases filled with his notes he had taken over the twelve years he had worked for the KGB. His files reveals the names of hundreds of Soviet spies including the names of many Russian born spies who moved into other countries, took up deep cover and took up names native to that country (They are referred to as "Illegals" in the book.) The files also reveals the names on native born citizens who also work with these spies and KGB unknowingly or knowingly, The files were verified by the British Secret service as being authentic and other other authentic sources collaborate the files as being factual. The FBI said the files were "The most complete and extensive intelligence ever rec...

And I have this nice little book written by Christopher Andrew and by a soviet defector who was a former retired archivist/ librarian for the KGB, Vasili Nikitich Mitrokhin. His job in the KGB's foreign Intelligence Archive was to catalogue and file Top secret files of various covert actions of soviet Spies within his branch of the KGB the The First Chief directorate (FCD).otherwise known as the Russian foreign Intelligence service.called Sluzhba Vneshnei Razvedki (SVR). Mitrokhin was allowed to make notes on the files he saw and keep them. When Mitrokhin defected, he brought with him and his family six cases filled with his notes he had taken over the twelve years he had worked for the KGB. His files reveals the names of hundreds of Soviet spies including the names of many Russian born spies who moved into other countries, took up deep cover and took up names native to that country (They are referred to as "Illegals" in the book.) The files also reveals the names on native born citizens who also work with these spies and KGB unknowingly or knowingly, The files were verified by the British Secret service as being authentic and other other authentic sources collaborate the files as being factual. The FBI said the files were "The most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source." The book that resulted of the files that the British Secret service has allowed for publication reveals a nice little story of Soviet espionage for over .a quarter of a century. And yes, there is a large section of the book detailing how Soviet spies and communist infiltrated the Democratic party and how an American by the name of Gus Hall was the head of the Communist Party Of America (CPUSA) and was indeed in communication with the Kremlin. While Hall's party was never effective, He did indeed folded it into the Democratic party. And also Hall was a liaison between the Kremlin and a pair of double agent brothers by the name of Morris and Jack Childs (The only double agents in history who received medals from both the Soviet Union (The order of the Red Banner by Brezhnev in 1975) and the United States (The Medal Of Freedom from Reagan in 1987).)..

The book also has this cute little paragraph in it. The word "Centre" was a codename for KGB foreign intelligence office in Moscow.:
"Though Hall tended to overstate the influence of undeclared members of the CPUSA within the Democratic Party, there was at least one to whom the Centre attached real importance during the 1970s: a Democratic activist in California recruited a KGB agent during a visit to Russia. The agent, who was not identified by name in the reports noted by Mitrokhin, had a wide circle of influential contacts in the Democratic party: among them Governor Jerry Brown of California, Senator Alan Cranstan, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator J. William Fulbright, and Congressman John Conyers, Jr..During the 1976 Presidental election the agent was able to provide inside information from within the Carter camp, and a profile of Carter himself, which were particularly highly valued by the Centre since it had so few high-level American sources. On one occasion he spent three hours discussing the progress of the campaign at a meeting with Carter, Brown, and Cranston in Carter's room at the Pacific Hotel. His report was forwarded to The Politburo. During the final stages of the campaign, the agent had what the KGB claimed were "Direct and prolonged conversations" with Carter, Governor Brown and Senators Cranston, Kennedy, Ribicoff, and Jacob Javits. Andropov attached such importance to the reports on these conversations that he forwarded it under his signature to the Politburo immediately after Carter's election."

Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov was the chairman of the KGB at that time. Please note that the names of the senators and such doesn't mean they were spies themselves, It means that the person they were talking to was a spy. But however, since you tried to tied the republican party to Nazis , I had definitely proof to link Democrats to the CPUSA, Soviet Russia, known traitors and being infiltrated by the KGB.
touche.